Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2008, 6:55 AM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 17
Default

How about a $600 D200? Is the D200 with a 2.8 lens good enough for sports? Lets say shooting baseball or football games at night? Hows the image quality?

Anyone here care toshare sample images?

Thanks
jmdesign-digital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 7:13 AM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That price is too low. If that's supposed to be new, you're probably seeing a listing from one of the well known scam artists around.

The lowest price I see right now on a new D200 body from a reputable dealer is over $900.

There are lots of scammers around with nice looking web sites with nice logos, etc. Most are located in the Brooklyn area, where they seem to be able to get away with it.

When you see prices that are much lower than you find at http://www.buydig.com or http://www.bhphotovideo.com (both reputable dealers) on major brand gear, there is usually going to be a catch. ;-)

The scammers will call you to confirm the order. Then, you'll also find out that they'll want to sell you high priced batteries, extended warranties, stuff that normally comes with the camera anyway, want to include inflated shipping and insurance charges (sometimes unauthorized). Anything to increase their profit (since they can't sell the camera alone at the advertised prices without losing money).

If you don't buy enough of the outrageously priced extras, your camera will suddenly go to backorder status (of course, the web sites still show them in stock and your credit card has been charged). They'll often sell gray market gear, too (not intended for sale in the country you live in with a store versus manufacturers warranty). Note that Nikon USA will refuse to service a camera that was not intended for sale in the U.S., even if you are willing to pay them for the service.

This has been going on for years. It's a racket.

Do yourself a favor and stick with a reputable dealer.

Make sure to check out any vendor you consider using http://www.resellerratings.com
(they're a bit better about filtering out fake customer reviews compared to most ratings sites)

If they are not listed, I'd avoid them (these guys tend to start up new web sites often under a variety of names). If they have a small number of customer reviews there, avoid them (they tend to try and get away with padding their own ratings with glowing reviews). Some even seem to have their own ratings sites now (with all of the stores listed being same old scammers, with the reviews unbelievably good).

Suggested Reading:

How to buy a Digital Camera without being robbed

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 7:40 AM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

jmdesign-digital wrote:
Quote:
How about a $600 D200? Is the D200 with a 2.8 lens good enough for sports? Lets say shooting baseball or football games at night? Hows the image quality?

Anyone here care toshare sample images?

Thanks
The d200 had poor high ISO performance. The d50 actually had better high ISO performance. It's a poor choice for low light sports shooting.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 8:00 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 17
Default

Thanks for the replies.

I forgot to mention that the $600 D200 is a used mint cam with less than 9k in actuations. Will the poor high ISO performance of the d200 can be eliminated using noise reduction software?

What is the usual settings in shooting sportsduring nightime using a 2.8 lens?










jmdesign-digital is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 9:01 AM   #25
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JohnG shoots a lot of sports. So, he would be in a better position to answer your questions on settings he finds are more commonly needed for best results.

But, from what I can see of some of the night football albums around, you may want to use ISO 3200 at f/2.8 to keep shutter speeds fast enough to have a higher percentage keepers without motion blur at many school stadiums.

The Nikon D200 used a first generation Sony 10MP CCD sensor. It was followed by the Sony A100, Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D, also using Sony 10MP CCD sensors. The Sony 10MP CCD sensors are not known to be great at higher ISO speeds. Sony limited their first model (A100) using one to ISO 1600 (although this Sony model was more sensitive than rated and the D200 isn't). But, Nikon decided to allow up to ISO 3200 with the D200, which is pushing one a bit too much for anything other than smaller viewing and print sizes. Some of the newer models using a Sony 10MP CCD also have ISO 3200 available (for example, the Nikon D60 and Sony A200), and the newer models tend to have a bit better results, probably due to improvements made in later generations of sensors, as well as improvements in image processing (and each camera manufacturer tends to approach image processing and noise reduction algorithms differently, even when they're using the same type of sensor).

But, a camera using a Sony 10MP CCD is not a great choice if you want to use ISO 3200. You'd be better off with a model using the newer Sony 12MP CMOS sensor (Nikon D300 and D90; Sony A700) if you want better results at higher ISO speed settings, compared to a a model using a Sony 10MP CCD (especially when looking at earlier models using one). Or, move to a Canon model like the EOS-30D, 40D or 50D, etc., as these have ISO 3200 available. Entry level Canon models like the XS, XTi and XSi don't have an ISO 3200 setting.

It's all subjective, and the print and viewing sizes you need also factor into the equation. If you're going to stick with smaller prints, you may be more tolerant of noise levels. Keep in mind that noise reduction software will reduce detail. So, there's no free lunch. ;-)

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2008, 10:14 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 17
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
JohnG shoots a lot of sports. So, he would be in a better position to answer your questions on settings he finds are more commonly needed for best results.

But, from what I can see of some of the night football albums around, you may want to use ISO 3200 at f/2.8 to keep shutter speeds fast enough to have a higher percentage keepers without motion blur at many school stadiums.

The Nikon D200 used a first generation Sony 10MP CCD sensor. It was followed by the Sony A100, Nikon D80 and Pentax K10D, also using Sony 10MP CCD sensors. The Sony 10MP CCD sensors are not known to be great at higher ISO speeds. Sony limited their first model (A100) using one to ISO 1600 (although this Sony model was more sensitive than rated and the D200 isn't). But, Nikon decided to allow up to ISO 3200 with the D200, which is pushing one a bit too much for anything other than smaller viewing and print sizes. Some of the newer models using a Sony 10MP CCD also have ISO 3200 available (for example, the Nikon D60 and Sony A200), and the newer models tend to have a bit better results, probably due to improvements made in later generations of sensors, as well as improvements in image processing (and each camera manufacturer tends to approach image processing and noise reduction algorithms differently, even when they're using the same type of sensor).

But, a camera using a Sony 10MP CCD is not a great choice if you want to use ISO 3200. You'd be better off with a model using the newer Sony 12MP CMOS sensor (Nikon D300 and D90; Sony A700) if you want better results at higher ISO speed settings, compared to a a model using a Sony 10MP CCD (especially when looking at earlier models using one). Or, move to a Canon model like the EOS-30D, 40D or 50D, etc., as these have ISO 3200 available. Entry level Canon models like the XS, XTi and XSi don't have an ISO 3200 setting.

It's all subjective, and the print and viewing sizes you need also factor into the equation. If you're going to stick with smaller prints, you may be more tolerant of noise levels. Keep in mind that noise reduction software will reduce detail. So, there's no free lunch. ;-)
Thanks Jim. I guess this leaves me the D90 as my next alternative even with a 4.5 fps as compared to 5fps of the D200.
jmdesign-digital is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 AM.